Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#631

Post by zerocrates »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #617
elagost wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app) He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffl…

Could they put: Apple Users: Upgrade. Then on the payment page: - Spotify fee: $9.99. - Apple's cut: $3.33. (When purchased through the app, save online). - Total: $13.32 > [Purchase Button]

Probably would be deemed to violate the Guidline that "You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#632

Post by ChildOfChaos »

Eh this is just one big company trying to get more profits by complaining against another.

Spotify is not the good guy here.

Spotify works just fine on apple products (I use it), who cares about using Apples payment processing system (which they have a right to charge for), it's a Spotify service, so i should pay through Spotify which i do.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#633

Post by Faark »

xvector wrote: post #434
acdha wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. Congratulations, you've just reinvented the desktop adware / malware market. We know that if this is possible users will be manipulated into making bad decisions which are hard to recover from, and in many cases those bad decisions will be made for them by their carrier. What I would support is that the app store should be more open: no refusing…

Completely agree. The blindness of users here towards the use case of non-techies is surprising.

It's not really blindness... it's a trade-off I'd be willing to make to still own & have full control over the hardware I buy. Unless we can find a better middle way to achieve this.

Also, is Android as malware infected as GP describes? He singles out desktops, but Android does allow side-loading apps and people still near exclusively download apps though the play store. Adding a few other stores of big&trusted companies to painlessly load apps doesn't seem that risky to me. But would certainly add competition. I really don't understand why I must have a Google account to download Microsoft office.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#634

Post by laumars »

ric2b wrote: post #384
laumars wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had both Android and iPhones and honestly they're much the same. Google gives you a little more freedom in app development but you lose a lot of privacy. Neither company champions jailbreaking. Ultimately there isn't a single consumer handset out there that has the same principles of "now you own the device it's yours to do with as you like". Consumer tech just doesn't operate that way any more.

Lots of Android phones have unlocked bootloaders and it's easy to sideload apps without rooting/jailbreaking.

Some handsets might have an unlocked boot loader but that’s only half the battle. It doesn’t mean there will be a working port of Android available, that any proprietary hardware will be supported nor that you’d get the full features of Android (at least not legally since the Google Play is only available for licensed OEMs).

Also I’d already acknowledged that it was easier and cheaper to sideload apps on Android.

Before you jump in and say something like “why should OEMs / Google offer you all this stuff for free etc”, I do completely agree. This isn’t a rant at Google (nor Apple) specifically but just at the state of technology these days. It’s not just an issue about geeks like us having ownership of our devices, it’s also creating a problem for environmental waste since it’s becoming increasingly hard to upgrade or replace parts. Laptops have components soldered in and old phones often end up in landfills. It’s such a shame to see.

Anyhow, I’ve drifted way off topic. Sorry for that

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#635

Post by threeseed »

dalore wrote: post #580
gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

What they need to do is split off the new competing services into a walled corporation (even new entity). And they play fair by the rules, so 30% tax even to them.

Not sure if you know how enterprises work.

But it is standard practice for divisions to bill other divisions for work. I would be almost certain that Apple Music is already paying the 30% tax however since it’s internal it doesn’t really make a difference. Likewise splitting into a new entity does not change anything.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#636

Post by blackflame7000 »

berbec wrote: post #613
blackflame7000 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the fact is that they can’t so long as Apple is manipulating their platform but they can encourage people to leave the Apple platform which is far more devastating to Apple than losing music subscribers

Do you think Spotify has the customers to force Apple to change because of the number of people who switch to Android for their service? Or does Apple have the customers to kill Spotify by cutting them off?

Whether they have the numbers or not this war was inevitable from the moment Apple announced their music subscription service. Ultimately it's going to come down to who does it better and by better, I mean which one helps people find new songs the best. But I will say one thing, I have had the iPhone since the very first model and I have never been closer to abandoning IOS because its price to value ratio is quickly becoming unfavorable. Anything that tips it further is not good for Apple especially now that they are no longer disclosing iPhone sales numbers, an indicator that they are declining.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#637

Post by threeseed »

blowski wrote: post #621
latexr wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Oh, Apple complained it’s not technically a microtransaction? Fine, just separate every feature into a new purchase. > If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why…

That’s sort of true for the app itself - if the Trello API is down then the Trello app doesn’t work.

Most people know the difference.

App doesn’t download - Apple’s fault.

App doesn’t work - App developer’s fault.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#639

Post by mertd »

berbec wrote: post #481
supernova87a wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing. Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to…

I was about to argue with this and rage against Apple, but then I remembered a very similar situation everyone deals with and no one complains about: Supermarket Generics. "How is it fair for Price Chopper to undercut Rice Crispies with a similar, cheaper product?" no on says this...

Because your choice of phone brand does not tie you to a specific grocery where you can buy rice crispies. You can simply cross the street and shop at a competing grocery.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#640

Post by oneplane »

judge2020 wrote: post #557
gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

While the Apple Tax is a problem of its own, I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites. A large part of iOS security is that everything has to be co-signed by Apple unless it's an Enterprise distribution app [1], so even if there is an exploit that breaks out of the app sandbox you don't have to worry about malicious websites drive-by downloading it. 1: they're likely refining the process of o…

While I agree that the percentage that Apple takes per sale is too high, I completely disagree with the term 'vendor Tax'. While it's fine as a fun synonym, it's problematic as soon as people start to think about it as an actual Tax. It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. But because it's bad for the bottom-line of most companies to do so, they position themselves as a sad little broken bird that gets stomped around by the big bad corp. Newsflash: they all are generic money making capitalistic institutions that on the business side exclusively exist to make money. For profit. For doing things, any thing, to make money. That goes for Spotify and Apple just the same.

On the side of 'level playing field' they do of course still have a point, just like all the anti-trust stuff we had/have with Microsoft and Google. It does make me wonder a bit why this hasn't been involving other companies like Amazon and Facebook. (or, why it hasn't been suggested as widely as it is now)

I do wonder about the technical aspect of those store denials and watchOS problems; other streaming services do not face the same issues/pressue, so what makes spotify so special? They app is a bit crappy (it's not very good at maintaining/restoring state and doesn't have the most consistent UI), but other than that, it doesn't do much different things when compared to others (like Deezer or Tidal). Putting it as a "Apple Music vs. Spotify" thing is a bit weird too; while it might make sense, it doesn't make sense if it's just that and all the other streaming and buying services are free to do what they want. It's weird stuff.

Post reply on HN